Zwift Chat

[BurningLegs]

Oh is it Luciano from zwiftinsider?

Didn't know there was anyone other than Eric at ZwiftInsider, but yes this is him:

https://zwiftinsider.com/author/luciano-pollastri/

The image on the Zwift forum profile, blog, and ZwiftInsider are all the same person.

Interesting that he published this on a dedicated blog site rather than ZwiftInsider, isn't it. They knew it was going to ruffle feathers...

 

[CXRAndy]

Sometimes direct action has a Zwifter outcome

 

[Peter Salt]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfy2uLrQ2Tk

 

[Supersuperleeds]

I'm not bothered either way. Maybe this is a massive waste of a post but it's better than posting about Ukraine on the footy forum I go on!

Do you go on WACCOE?

 

[bridgy]

My view for what it is worth is that Zwift as usual are behaving shoddily. Whilst they are right to clamp down on cheating, in reality pretty much every race has some kind of cheating occurring which they do very little about - a couple of races to gather data to prove to Zwift about a major exploit should not warrant a ban, even if the culprit did technically break the terms and conditions. As usual the problem is Zwift's abysmal attitude to bugs and features because quite frankly they don't really care about their users. They would rather keep spending money on 3D artists for yet another expansion than fix the fundamental flaws in the system, plus work on things they announce yet never deliver.

The fact that Zwift have shoddy processes and they did not fix a pretty major flaw in the years they have known about it is not a big surprise, the cack handed way they are dealing with it is more of a surprise to me.

I agree @Milkfloat

It seems to me that his suspension is more driven by the blog post they don't like (probably because it embarrasses them just before the UCI e-sports world championships) than the actual cheating in the TT

 

[alex_cycles]

I agree @Milkfloat

It seems to me that his suspension is more driven by the blog post they don't like (probably because it embarrasses them just before the UCI e-sports world championships) than the actual cheating in the TT

Their whole response reminds me of the way Apple handled similar security issues not too long ago. I think they have seen the light now though. I expect Zwift will need to go through the same growing up season. Although, in reality, it changes nothing for most people. Most of their user base will never know nor care. What's important to them is pretty graphics and software that works with their hardware.

Whole thing's a bit silly really. There's no good reason why people should be allowed to change their weight during an "event".
("Ooops arm fell off. -4kg" )

 

[bridgy]

In my industry of cyber security, people who take this approach of exploring security problems and then disclosing them responsibly are rewarded. Often financially, almost always with a public thanks and recognition of their contribution. They never get kicked out. I am a strong advocate of it, and think it is really positive for cyber security and in this case anti-cheating.

But the actions of this researcher don't quite pass as "responsible disclosure". He cheated in a race. He's been banned for cheating in a race. He tried to mitigate it by entering a TT, but he still crossed a red-line of cheating in a race. Zwift have to maintain that red-line and must be seen to ban anyone who cheats in a race.

I do have sympathy for him and I hope Zwift overturn the ban, but he could (and should) have demonstrated this weakness in a meet-up or in a free-ride session.

The problem is that responsible disclosure relies on a contract between vendor and researcher where the researcher agrees not to cross certain red lines (e.g cheating in a race, even as a test), and gives the vendor reasonable time to fix issues. In return, the vendor typically agrees to resolve issues promptly (usually with a published timeline) and allows the researcher to share their findings publicly once the issue is fixed. It works well, but it relies on the terms being publicly available and an acknowledgement of the "rules" in advance.

Zwift don't have a security disclosure policy - it would help both the community and Zwift themselves if they published one!

Blimey - is this the first time I've actually been in support of a Zwift policy decision?!

I can't agree with you here Nick, with regards Zwift being right to ban him - both from a moral and a PR perspective.

He had to test it in a race situation- how else would you know if it worked in a race and what the results then showed?

Most of us have come across much more disruptive cheating than what he did in this TT and zwift have done nothing. Racing in the wrong category is more disruptive than this and users have been asking zwift for YEARS to enforce categories and they still haven't done it.

Putting aside whether it was morally right to ban him, it's the wrong decision from a PR perspective. They obviously don't want a light shone on this loophole that they've failed to close but by acting in the way they have, much more people know about it, are talking about it, and think negatively of zwift for it, than would have been the case if they'd handled it differently.

 

[Peter Salt]

The stream that I linked shows a guy doing the same with height.

At some point, he reduces his height to 25cm and the CdA goes so low that he's doing 1.5W/kg and dropping a group of A riders. As long as you go back to your original height before the race finishes everything looks good on ZP. The only suspicion might come from the fact that while others around you did (e.g.) 3.2W/kg you did 2.9W/kg - but then you can say you're really just a smart racer and kept in the draft.

The worst thing is that it's soooo simple. Really leaves a bad taste in your mouth

I think I'll test our RGT unless Zwift changes their approach/tone.

 

[Legs]

It's also worth noting that his performance in the TT was far slower than he is capable of achieving when competing 'correctly'.

I'm still completely incapacitated by my cough, but when do I swing my leg back over the bike it might be on RGT, too...

 

[bridgy]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfy2uLrQ2Tk

The most insane thing about this is not that you can do this cheat with height as well as weight (and height can have a big affect on speed on the flat) but that Zwift have set the minimum height you can input at.....25cm - WTF!

 

[alex_cycles]

The most insane thing about this is not that you can do this cheat with height as well as weight (and height can have a big affect on speed on the flat) but that Zwift have set the minimum height you can input at.....25cm - WTF!

Trying to be inclusive, but I'm not sure if bikes even exist for 25cm beings

 

[<Tommy>]

One of the reasons I find sandbagging so odd is that weight and height doping seem so easy. It’s less likely to be picked up. And the result is basically the same.

Obviously another reason why it’s so odd is because it’s pathetic…

 

[Peter Salt]

Trying to be inclusive, but I'm not sure if bikes even exist for 25cm beings

I think I'm the closest to that number on this forum and can definitely confirm

One of the reasons I find sandbagging so odd is that weight and height doping seem so easy. It’s less likely to be picked up. And the result is basically the same.

Obviously another reason why it’s so odd is because it’s pathetic…

Adding 20kg to your weight just to stay in a category is just as silly as dropping 20kg to go faster up a hill, agreed.

There are times when I wonder whether I'm just naive or outright stupid because I don't cheat. On Zwift, I've never manipulated my height or weight - not even on recovery rides. Why not just drop to 40kg and fly up the Alpes to get that sub 60 min. achievement? If done outside a race it won't hurt anyone, right? So why not? And I honestly don't know what's stopping me. I don't think I'm any more honest/dishonest then the general population, but achieving something in that way would just make me feel like a complete piece of s.

 

[bridgy]

I think I'm the closest to that number on this forum and can definitely confirm


Adding 20kg to your weight just to stay in a category is just as silly as dropping 20kg to go faster up a hill, agreed.

There are times when I wonder whether I'm just naive or outright stupid because I don't cheat. On Zwift, I've never manipulated my height or weight - not even on recovery rides. Why not just drop to 40kg and fly up the Alpes to get that sub 60 min. achievement? If done outside a race it won't hurt anyone, right? So why not? And I honestly don't know what's stopping me. I don't think I'm any more honest/dishonest then the general population, but achieving something in that way would just make me feel like a complete piece of s.

You're not naive or stupid- I do believe most people are honest but there will always be people who take trying to gain an advantage either physically or with their equipment, to a level that ends up crossing the line of cheating.

No one's going to change that any time soon, but it is the job of companies like zwift to design their software to at least make this harder to do.

Without wanting to lower the tone too much, someone on the zwift forum put it quite well when they said something along the lines of "cheating on zwift is like faking your orgasm while masturbating" which did make me laugh

 

[straas]

I do wonder that about zwift, is the competition really high because everyone on zwift is generally already riding at a decent level or is there widespread doping to differing degrees.

I am generally pretty competitive on hills on club runs but feel like I'm going backwards on any incline in races.